I previously related the non-story of my submission of Programmer: Battle for Bandwidth to Mayfair Games. To recap: after seeing my initial concept submission, they liked it enough to ask for the rulebook. I sent it off to them over half a year ago and had given up on ever hearing back. I just received the following:
Dear Mr. Keller,

Thank you for giving us a chance to review your design again. We have looked at the rules you sent, and after much consideration, I'm sorry to say that we have decided not to pursue your design any further.

I'm afraid we do not feel that this design is right for our family of products at this time.

We do hope that you will continue your efforts to find the right publisher for your game. We also hope you will consider us again for any future project which may be a better fit for our line.

Thank you again,

-William Niebling
Editorial Director
So, yes, it was a rejection. But I am glad to at least have received an answer at all, even if it took awhile. I certainly appreciate that to an indefinite limbo of silence. So I'd like to send a sincere thanks to Mayfair.

Mar 20, 2006

V.I.N.CENT.

A friend of mine who happens to be a regular reader of this blog brought to my attention this story about a new formulation of black hole theory. Now, I’m certainly no genius, but I have long included physics among those academic areas which I keep abreast of as a hobby (economics being another notable) despite a lack of interest in holding a job at which I might employ this knowledge. I understand the actual physics involved here only to a very limited extent, but I can appreciate the significance of the idea being presented. Namely, that objects that have crossed the “event horizon” (previously thought to be a mathematical boundary around a black hole whose transversal essentially relegated the wayward traveler to complete disappearance from the knowable universe, with no trace to ever be seen again) could actually theoretically be revealing residual information through radiation.

The reason that I am writing about this is that the aforementioned friend told me I should make a game about black holes. Now, I certainly would not be the first person to incorporate a black hole into a game. It is often seen in games acting as a whirlpool of certain destruction for ships foolhardy enough to venture near.

However, this new development opens a potential avenue of originality in dealing with the subject.

Let’s interrupt this for a moment to state that I have no intention of actually making the game I am about to propose. As I’ve said previously, I like to do quick and rough game designs entirely in my head merely as a thought exercise to not only hone my interpretive design skills, but also because I find it amusing. Of course, I never intended on making Television Executive either, but you know how that turned out. Still, don’t take the following too seriously, as I am not really trying.

So, let us go back to the opportunity for novelty in black hole mechanic design. To incorporate a black hole in a way that is distinguished from previous implementations I now need only base it on the heretofore-unknown “retrievability” of information from black holes. There is more than one way to deal with this.

The most obvious and least interesting would be a game based on fishing items out of a black hole. This of course stretches the science quite a bit, but I will claim poetic license based on the fact that I once wrote a dirty limerick. Perhaps players compete to find the most valuable objects, which are pre-seeded in the black holes. This could even lend itself to a magnetic dexterity game of sorts. You need to carefully use your “tractor beam” (fishing rod) to grab items without being sucked into the black hole (through magnetic attraction to your ship) and turned into a salvageable lump of metal yourself.

For a more serious take, the black holes effects can just be simulated through calculable rules, perhaps with gravitational spikes or radiation thrown into the game as random events with controllable levels of probability and defense depending on your ship’s adventurousness in trawling for treasure.

A far more interesting way to approach this would be as a deduction game. Players all launch items into the black holes, but only know which items they personally sent in. The black holes can then be examined and the results of the examination can be used to deduce the contents of the black hole somehow. This approach would require a either a moderator (such as in Mastermind or Zendo, one of my favorite games), a complicated physical mechanism, or a simple computer to translate the contents of the black hole(s) into some kind of abstraction/hash from which players must figure out the contents by performing experiments to discover how the black hole reacts and what that must mean about the interior of the event horizon. I probably would avoid anything where the players question each other, as Clue and Mystery of the Abbey have really taken that mechanic further than it has any right to go.

Damn, the more I think about this the more I’d like to actually try and tackle this game. Utopia was a failed attempt of mine at a deduction game. It would be nice to be able to make something in that genre that at least I found some merit in. I have way too many designs which I’m working on, or rather failing to have time to work on, as things stand. I’m gonna stick this in my file for a time when my design plate isn’t so full. Hopefully it will still be (assuming for the sake of argument it is now) an original idea when that time presents itself.

Mar 15, 2006

Spring Break

I'm off of school this week, and the weather has turned for the better. I don't plan on writing much, because I want to enjoy the outdoors for once in my life. But I plan on having a playtest for Television Executive this Sunday, with the changes I mentioned now implemented. I am very excited about it. I've already done a one-man test with it. I can see the game is growing organically with regards to strategy while the effort required to track the gamestate is shrinking before my eyes. That's a win-win situation.

Mar 13, 2006

Let's End This Already

Several of you have asked for more to the story of my first round of submissions for Programmer: Battle for Bandwidth. Truth is, there isn't much more story to tell. After receiving the terse rejection letter from Out of the Box Publishing, I sent the rulebook off to Mayfair, which had requested it. I hadn't made any changes to the version OotB had seen yet. Since then, nothing. I think it is safe to say that if they haven't responded for five months, they won't be responding at all. Actually figuring out a day to give up on them was hard. You always want to think a response is but a day away.

On a related note, the day I give up on a certain company's interest in Battle Stations (soon to be renamed as I've been pointed to a sci-fi game with the name Battlestations) is just about here. I'll let you know when it hits.

Also, Days of Wonder is no longer accepting game submissions. That's one more door closed forever. I even had decided on them being the eventual first target for Theme Park.

But the segment from the Colbert Report that talks about it is pretty funny. Click here.

Mar 9, 2006

Just a Spud

Mario over at Boardgamers' Pastime wrote about how he is paring back the amount of time he spends on activities ancilliary to boardgames. If he is a "Boardgame Potato" then I am a little spud, looking to shoot my roots out in search of nutrients. The nutrients in question are information. To be able to design a boardgame you need to make sure you are creating something at least marginally new. To know that you must first know what is out there. From "The Game Inventor's Guidebook":
I've heard some designers say they never look at games that are similar to the one they're working on because they don't want outside ideas to influence their original thinking. This is a big mistake. You absolutely need to know what other games are aimed at the same consumer segment you're targeting. First, you don't want to waste your time creating a game that's already been published . . . This not only wastes your time, it tarnishes your future credibility if you ever want to show another game to that publisher.
I have already had some experience with this. Long after I came up with most of Programmer: Battle for Bandwidth, I heard about RoboRally. I had originally thought that my idea of building a program to control a game with cards was a completely original idea. After reading up on the Geek about it I realized I needed to investigate it. I bought it and found two important things: one, I really like the game. Its appeal to me is obviously because of my background in programming, which was also the inspiration for Programmer. Second, my game was different in enough ways (the variable mechanic, one shared program instead of individuals, victory points instead of a race to the finish) that I could continue working on it.

What does this have to do with my earthen fruit analogy? I can't afford to buy every game out there. Being relatively new to serious boardgames, I'm too far behind (not to mention too poor) to be able to get every classic already out and every new game coming out at Spiel.

So I must rely on others to reveal to me what already exists in the world of gaming. What mechanics have been done to death? What themes are ripe for further exploration? Where are the lines between homage, improvement, borrowing, and rip-off?

But I do not yet know where to get this. There is the Geek, but it has frankly become too successful. You can find anything there, but you have to know it is there to be found first. What are the definitive game news sites? Where can I find a well-balanced history of the industry from a designer's perspective? What blogs best track the latest developments and trends?

There are too many places and I do not know which ones to visit first. I have some that I read now, as seen on my list of links, but how do I know those are the ones I should be reading? I cannot read too many or too often. Every moment spent reading is one less moment spent designing. Too many roots will be wasteful and I'll have nowhere to grow. Suggestions?

Mar 6, 2006

Retooling the Show

So, I was in Sociology earlier today when a bunch of ideas hit me. I of course took priorities into account and immediately started typing them up instead of paying attention to the lecture. Here is what I got:
Changed to drafting of all pieces. Snake draft or circular?
Victory points 10-6-3-1 * round number (1-4)
Each round, random unused time slot drawn.
Add new piece: location (office, hospital, island, courtroom, home)
Add base values for each card
Base value minus ripoff factor = audience appeal
Sum of two lowest audience appeals for a show generate its ratings

Mar 5, 2006

New Logo

How do you like it?

On another note, I had another playtest on Sunday for Television Executive. Having made the changes inspired by the last playtest, I was very excited, as I felt the game was on the cusp of having its rules start to be locked down. Here are the notes I took during the test:
Television Executive 2.0 Playtest
2006-03-04
George Chan, Farhan Ahmad, Nikko Monticello, Craig DeLisi

3:15pm
Nikko Complained about being out of genre bidding
Changed to player already with piece cannot play it
Nikko said game sucks
Some confusion wih george about how to handle cast members, consider changing the amount held and drawn by players.
More confusion with george about the cast member process
Removed fcc power, too difficult to track
Cast rules changed, just draw 2 play 2.
Cutting short, removing bidding
3:54pm
At that point I decided to fundamentally change the game, so it was pointless to continue the test, which was in the middle of round 2 (there are four rounds in this game). I was not happy with the way things unfolded. What is bothering me is that I just don't know exactly how I am going to proceed from this point with the game. I've had a bunch of ideas, but they have been dismissed for one reason or another. You always have to make changes. It is exciting when you think of ways to handle things. It is excruciating when you can't.

Mar 3, 2006

Free Game

I'm thinking about releasing one of my designs for free to you, my loyal reader. As for those of you who clicked a link to here thinking you were getting fake nudie pictures, you can have it as well, but be forewarned that it is nothing like Busen Memo. The plan would be that I'd post a .pdf with rules and cutouts that you could print on cardstock and play with. However, these pieces don't currently exist on my computer (the prototype for this particular design was always in physical form) so it would be a non-trivial task for me to create it. So, I need to know how much interest there would be in a game where you need to cut out approximately 100 pieces. Frankly, I don't think it is worth it. I once felt this game had promise, but even the latest fixes have failed to excite me about it.

Mar 2, 2006

An Answer

About a month after my meeting with OotB President Mark Alan Osterhaus at GenCon 2005 I got restless and sent the following e-mail on September 23:
Hiya! I just had two questions:
1) Will I be told if you guys don't want to publish it, or just hear nothing?
2) In either case, roughly when should I expect an answer by?

==========================
Michael R. Keller
rellekmr@rellekmr.net
Two weeks later on October 7th I finally got my answer:
Michael

Unfortunately PROGRAMMER did not make the cut in our September Product Development Meetings. It is being returned via Priority Mail.

Thanks again for the opportunity.

Mark

Mark Alan Osterhaus
President
Out of the Box Publishing, Inc.
So there you have it. It was the closest I'd come so far and yet I'd failed. After a brief sobering period (metaphorically speaking as I don't drink alcohol, though I was tempted to start that day), I would pick up with Mayfair.